Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?

After yesterdays tragic shooting in Newtown CT and the worst year ever for firearm related deaths and mass killings , has the time for the US Government to tell the Gun Lobby it is over and repeal or amend "the right of the people to bear arms".

Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and military hardware, which makes it no longer viable on account of relevance to this day and age.

That Militia should be held to Law Enforcement agencies, Military and government controlled Para military agencies, with a show need, clause for people such as certain Primary producers etc.

Is it time to tell the NRA and the Gun Lobby there will be no more "collateral" damage no matter how much you donate to the "Party"

What would be the best way for the government to enforce such a law???

And please no Guns do not kill people, people kill people debates it was people who invented firearms in the first place.

The time has come to realise it is mainly our children who pay the ultimate price for lack of diligence in monitoring a problem that has been there for far too many years.

Closing Statement from Morgan Barnes

Firstly I would like to say I did not flag or delete anyone's comments I am perfectly capable of speaking for myelf however I did get frustrated and had some comments deleted myself.
As I write this President Obama has signed 23 executive orders inline with Colleen's post from yesterday from New York.

I have to admit I am a little disappointed that we could not of just discussed the issue in a more calm, critical and logical manner and be able to offer solutions as well as recognised the underling causes, as this is a forum for open ideas and thinking, Then again we are dealing with human nature.
To those of you from the International community thank you for your imput and allowing people to see the different views helds in different parts of the world on this subject.
I will not deny that the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights are the backbone of America, but remember it was written by man not given by god and man can take it away or amend it, if he really wants too.
I am a believer that in the 21st Century we should use it to advance humankind to address the problems of the world and improve it for all. It won't be easy but we have to start somewhere or we risk implementing our own destruction.
I hope that this be a positive start and and an even more positive step in which the US can show the way.
Once again I thank you all for your contributions

"In a progressive country change in constant : change is inevitable "Benjamen Disraeli

Jan 13 2013:
The original premise of the 2nd Amendment is valid and was written to enable citizens to protect themselves from a hostile government. It was also based on the need or desire to have local militia, for which citizens would be able to provide their own weapon - which at the time was a single shot musket. What has gotten completely out of control is the way zealots, especially among those on the pro-gun side of the equation, have corrupted the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment. I see less of a need to repeal than it is to legislatively update and clarify. It seems clear to me that setting some limitations on what one has the right to own, carry, and use is hardly the same as banning all guns. To hear the NRA, any limitation begins the slippery slope towards taking away the right entirely. If that is truly the case, then what is the legitimacy of any law or regulation? My right to own a car does not also grant me the right to drive it any way I want at any speed. My right to consume alcohol and my right to drive, does not grant me the right to drink and drive. My rights are not being infringed when the greater good of society is protected. Regulating the possession of high-powered weapons and lethal ammunition designed solely to kill other human beings, is not the same as banning all weapons or voiding the second amendment. Given the statistics on gun related deaths here in America, the argument that gun ownership makes us safer rings hollow.

Jan 14 2013:
Here are a few links, including one from the University of Utah Medical Medical School. The datablog entry in the Guardian references the FBI and there is also a US Dept of Justice databank that outlines gun-related homicides versus that by other weapons, with gun use far higher than other weapons. The US also ranks 4th in the world for gun related deaths, behind South Africa, Colombia and Thailand (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms).

Jan 14 2013:
Thank you Don,
These links provide raw data. What is missing if we use only raw data and jump to a conclusion ie: "people are killing people with guns, therefore we need to ban guns" is the context in which these incidents are taking place, Since 75% of gun murders are taking place in inner city gangs, does it make sense to say that guns are the causal agent or that banning guns is the cure? Chicago has stringent gun laws and one of the highest per capita incident of gun homicides in the nation. Why, if those policies fail so miserably on a small scale, is it imagined that they will work on a large scale?
The other statistic that is missing, since a ban effects all legal gun owners, is the one that demonstrates that legal gun owners are committing a disproportional number of murders.

Jan 14 2013:
Marianne, I didn't read where Don was mentioning a ban on all guns. Maybe I missed that part. I think all logic shows that banning all guns would not resolve the issue. However, placing restrictions on 'military style' weapons could reduce the mass shootings. Will people in gangs and other criminals still carry those weapons - of course. That is why they are criminals. However, the people who have legal access to weapons who feel the need to go out in a blaze, might not have such a tragic affect if they were not allowed high capacity cartridges or sub uzi's.

I do not begrudge anyone owning a gun. I support their right. However, I question the sanity of owning an assult weapon.

Jan 13 2013:
Just who are the zealots who have interpreted the constitution? Those who say the arms in the 2nd Amendment just meant muskets? What about the sabers?
Aren't all weapons high powered in the sense that they can kill human beings? All ammunition is lethal regardless of design.
So we limit the rights of the individual for the perceived safety of society? I have not speaking of the rights of an individual that has caused murder or mayhem on society. I am speaking of an individual who has a legal right to possess a firearm. of his choice, except now it can not fire automatically, or be of more then a certain caliber, under go investigations, get licenses, etc., etc. And now you are proposing more etcs.
Just how safe how safe does society need to feel.
I under go what used to be considered felonious sexual assault to board an airplane just so society can feel safe?
Hundreds of posts here have listed statistics of murder and mayhem on society. Gunfire is not on top of the list. Any act of harm is illegal. Lets address those illegal activities instead of addressing a legal activity.

PS. FYI. You can drink as much as you want and drive as fast as you want on your own property and you don't even need a license. Have a great time!

Jan 14 2013:
So Don,
Zealots? Is that all there is in that quiver? Name calling and demonization only plays to your choir.
Do you want a real answer to your question? "To hear the NRA, any limitation begins the slippery slope towards taking away the right entirely. If that is truly the case, then what is the legitimacy of any law or regulation? "

The 2nd Amendment was written to reserve the right of armed revolt against the government. The way it is written states that at no time shall that right be diminished. Like it or not, we live under a social contract called the US Constitution. According to any form of contract law, we all must abide by it unless you can overthrow it by either force or mutual agreement. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is not really that unclear whenever it gets to the Supreme Court because they have such vast writings from the people who wrote it that their exegesis supports the premise, that the people have reserved the right to armed revolution. It only follows logically that if the government regulates it, that the government will have a conflict of interest. By the way, it never mentions guns at all.

Jan 14 2013:
This was a reply to Don's previous tome. I tried to address his points.
I am aware of the 2nd and the Federalist Papers addressing the tenor of the times. I hold myself to be a strict constitutionalists. I am wary of those who interpret the constitution, like judges who believe they know better then Jefferson and Madison; the elected who know better then the electorate and academics who know better then anybody.

Jan 14 2013:
I entered the conversation to offer an opinion and participate in the discussion. I hoped to join a discussion that allows both sides to think and consider ideas. For example, I am now thinking about the point about the potential conflict of interest. So thank you for raising it. I am not of the opinion that there should be a repeal, which was the overarching conversation starter. In fact, I agree with the basic premise and stated that at the top.
The overall issue of armed violence is complicated and encompasses many factors beyond weapons and guns and controlling legislation. I joined this conversation because the topic is important and worthy of the wisdom and insight that can come from open dialog. I will leave it at that.

Jan 14 2013:
Don,
The issue is most important and well worth the discussion. The frustrating thing for me is that the illegal violence continues albeit, it is supposed to be improving. Yet, The issue of the 2nd repeatedly comes up, restrictions are placed against legal gun owners, and these effects made no appreciable reductions in violent crime. Reductions seemed to have come from more policing efforts and new law enforcement techniques. I am at a loss to understand why some raise this cry for action concerning the 2nd. Over zealous gun holders cry out that certain elements are out to disarm them and take over the country. Repeated attempts at doing something to the 2nd begins to lend credence to cry's of the conspiracy theorists.

Comment deleted

Jan 14 2013:
James, History shows us that once power is ceded, those to whom it is ceded never give it back voluntarily. I have not been arguing here for my guns, but for my rights.
What is really been demonstrated, is that the prohibitionists display an almost complete unawareness that they are the provocateurs in this discussion, and that as such, they needed to answer the questions that they have provoked. They have failed miserably throughout this thread.

Instead, they seem to assume that since, in their own imagination, they occupy the moral high ground and that their postures always represent moral enlightenment, that those who do not concede are working out their primitive fears.

They have demonstrated this in that they don't ever have to give a reasoned explanation to the myriad of contradictions to their theory that have been presented to them, simple things like the failure of the exact policies that they are clamoring for, to get them the result they theorize about, such as Chicago gun laws.

They simply denounce Constitutionalism as backwards and go on to assure us that their conclusions as just so OBVIOUS, that we should all submit to their superior revelations.

Jan 14 2013:
Rights, like constitutions are just human constructs. I actually agree with most of the values that sit behind most modern human rights. While I agree with self defense, I'm not sure having an ak47, or stingers, or land mines in private hands is the same as freedom of speech, or is necessary or a good thing for society.

If stingers were widely available I assume you would have fanatics shooting down planes.

You mentioned Nazi Germany. Part of the problem there was the armed private militias, like the sa. I wonder if us citizens may have more to worry about with freedom fanatics and anti government people than the government.

Jan 14 2013:
I don't disagree that there needs to be alternative things to try. I have no problems with background checks, and fingerprinting is done in my state for handguns. I would have no problems with mental health screens as well, especially if they put those into place for police officers as well. After that however, after putting a lawful citizen through all that, they should be able to purchase whatever they want. I understand the limit them mentality, I just don't believe it will change things. I would be much more open to menatl health issues, and intitatives to reslove the problems of this nature.

Jan 14 2013:
Really? In what country? Certainly not here? Are you sure you've got your facts straight? I have several family members in law enforcement, and the only one that had to take anything was federal. Are you really so sure?

Jan 14 2013:
I called my family members it seems some, and I repeat some police forces require pysch tests, but not all. They also told me if I google it [and i did] you will be amazed at the number of sites showing you how to beat the test. Yeah, REAL extensive.

Jan 14 2013:
In the US, the arrangement to have the trained psychiatric personnel administer the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test to law enforcement candidates, rapidly deteriorated due to the problem that so many of the LE personnel test results showed they tested the same as criminals, also showed other severe personality disorders. LE Unions argued that they tested that way because they "had to learn to think like the criminals" that they were fighting.
It is now common to have LE personnel administer the tests to their brothers, and I have even know officers that couldn't pass it until they were "tutored" by other LE personnel.
Most of what I know about this, came directly from an elected Sheriff and a former Colorado State Trooper who had been involved in the hiring process, also the psychiatrist that did all the testing for one state, that I will not mention.

Jan 14 2013:
Timothy,
I was curious, so I googled "How to beat the law enforcement tests".

I got lots of sites with instructions... "tips on how to deal with testing", "strategies for police applicants", "police quiz preperation", "police prep info", etc. etc. The only thing I could find were sites which appeared to be educational sites to prepare an applicant for the tests.

Could you provide links to sites which show a person how to "beat" the tests?

Jan 14 2013:
When I went back there I found several sites that did everything from telling you what to expect to how to answer the questions, but I may have misspoken as the one site I didn't go to was titled "how to beat the police pysch test" and was a police site that once you started to read it said you couldn't beat it. So I just stole the title, my mistake. but the jist is, not all police, in this country especially, have to take pysch tests, and when they do, lots are thrown out on their ears, and are then upset because theyv'e been police officers for years.

Jan 15 2013:
I have been following this conversation from the start and I have come to a couple of conclusions. The point is not about the caliber of a weapon or preventing people from owning weapons, but about the mortality rates in gun crime as opposed to other violent crimes. People get beaten to death too.
I am from New Zealand a country that has extremely strict regulations around owning weapons (not a country that bans weapons or prevents decent, sane, non-criminal people from having them), and given that I work within the police/Ministry of Justice field, I have a much better understanding of how many murders occur and how they were killed, so I feel that I am in a position to say that guns are more likely to kill than knives or bare hands because of their lethal nature. The damage to human tissue is extreme. The wounds from a gun shot are also a lot more serious and as someone else mentioned in this discussion, lets not forget the survivors who have been shot and left extremely disabled.
I am not telling people they should not own guns, I am saying that the reality is, that in countries where there are a lot more regulations, guns are less likely to be in the wrong hands. Hands of people who go on killing sprees. If you are law-abiding, have had pyschological testing that shows a respect for life, do not have a history of violence and you and your family have been interviewed to establish that nobody in your life is afraid of the idea of you owning a weapon, and you can prove that this weapon will be locked up securely when not in use and under no circumstances will any children in the household have access to the weapon/s or the codes/lock to get into the weapons, then by all means, get yourself a gun!!! The problem is that in all of your states, there are no set or strict regulations. Some states require criminal checks. some states require nothing. For me the argument is about "Regulation." Is that so unreasonable?? Does this infringe on your rights?

Jan 15 2013:
While I agree with the general idea behind the regulation, I don't like the idea of asking the family if they're comfortable with you owning guns. That assumes that 1. your family is interested in your well-being, which may not be the case, 2. your family's idea of your well-being is the same as yours, which may not be the case.

Jan 15 2013:
That too. I don't know how effective brief psych evaluations would be. However, if the applicant already has had a psych evaluation, and has been diagnosed as paranoid-delusional, bipolar, etc., I'd consider that grounds for denying a permit.

Just in case someone brings it up... I don't think blind people should be allowed to own/use guns either.

Jan 15 2013:
John that's not funny, this could turn into a white paper monster and before you know it some group gets a lot of power and money and people get branded something that they are not. Government departments get created and the monster gets bigger.

Then something happens and the call goes out for all people by the people to be evaluated.

I do see how kids in the US get branded as something they are not, just because the school can make claims for extra funding for each "challenged" kid they host.

However, a few of my friends are psychologists. Not in the US. I have been told detailed stories of all kinds of strange cases. I also have two friends with bipolar disorder. A relative of another friend thinks that all his neighbors are plotting (some bizarre plot) against him.

The question remains: how likely is a person to endanger other people out of sheer recklessness. Some mental disorders (or physical ones, like blindness) render a person with a gun a risk to bystanders. Adam Lanza was one such person -- though all the diagnoses that he was bestowed turned out to be incorrect.

Jan 15 2013:
Hi John,
What I mean by family being asked is essentially your close loved ones, people you share a home with. The may even be a room mate. My experience of the process of getting a gun licence was when my flatmate just wanted to renew his, as he grew up on a farm and enjoyed hunting. Because I lived with him and would essentially be living in the same house where there was a gun, a policeman came over to interview me and asked me a lot of questions around how I felt about knowing there was a gun in the house, how I felt about my flatmate having a gun, whether I had any concerns etc, whether I was every afraid of him or if he showed any violent tendencies, so they really made sure that everyone in the house was ok with him having a gun. We were, as he was a lovely guy with a very gently nature. I had no problem with him having a gun because I was completely comfortable and safe with him.

Jan 13 2013:
Kate,
The fear saddens me as well. I cannot imagine how it must feel to live every day with so much fear of their own government!

I know LOTS of gun owners, and I have NEVER heard this kind of fear expressed. I am aware that there is a very tiny segment of our society living with this fear based belief, and apparently they are all here on this discussion thread?

Jan 13 2013:
Colleen, Isn't it true that what you are really experiencing is that your opponents are immovable and not receptive to what you imagine are your own 'reasonable pleadings" for them to agree with you?
People are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions and evaluations of the status of the nation.
You have not actually refuted any of the facts regarding abuses of power on the government side, you have simply pooh poohed and pretended that there is no connection to the issue.
Then you have tried to diminish the arguments of anti-prohibitionists with "what are you afraid of".
We don't want people like you and Morgan Barnes, tinkering with any part of the Constitution.

Jan 13 2013:
Marianne,
I am aware that you are immovable because you demonstrate that fact over and over again, and I am not "pleading" with you or anyone else. You have your perspective, and I have mine.

I support the removal of assault weapons from our communities, and based on the past ban on assault weapons, I believe that will happen without repeal or amendment of the constitution, because that document provides for "regulation" of guns.

Jan 16 2013:
Perhaps there is justification for "a very tiny segment of our society" to be in fear when something so simple as the size of sugary drink, we can consume, is regulated. Some people rightfully fear losing liberty.

I remember a nation with less regulation where I could buy a happy meal in San Francisco. Show me a world where more regulation offers more freedom and I'll show you a contradiction.

Jan 7 2013:
YES!!!!! It should have been repealed years ago! I am a New Zealander. A country that sees very little gun related deaths, because we do not all have the right to bear arms and in fact if we want to purchase or have a gun, we have to be interviewed by the police, have our family and friends interviewed by the police, police checks done etc, and then only for hunting. Even our police force does not as a rule carry guns (we have an armed unit that may be called out if necessary) and because of this our police are incredibly skilled at talking offenders down and calming situations. We have had very few police offices killed in the line of duty and those usually not by guns.
When your constitution was written, as I understand it. America did not have its own armed forces. Your country was brand new, as a result of no armed forces, the government relied on local militia to fight against the English. This was a time when farmers and landowners and everyday men where required to take up arms. In other words, this amendment was required at the time and fit the circumstances. This is no longer the case. You have the biggest armed forces in the world, you do not require farmers and grocers to pick up arms and fight for your country, so you should do as the rest of the world have done and make it illegal to own or buy a firearm without a firearms licence, which would be very difficult to get. America is so far behind the times it is a joke. Your constitution needs to be updated bigtime. It is 2013 people, not 1787!!!!

Jan 7 2013:
We also have a government guilty of war crimes and human rights violations. You watched as we slaughtered Iraq, just to show some muscle. We detain countless foreigners at Guantanamo for years without charge, many under 18. We assassinate foreign dissidents (and their families) with no judicial oversight or declaration of war, utilizing remotely controlled UAVs. We recently assassinated one of our own citizens, a 16 year old boy who was the subject of a recently dismissed court case. We drop these bombs in Pakistan and Somalia, and now Turkey as we slaughter Kurdish rebels for the Turkish government. We train our UAV pilots by locking onto domestic targets, cars cruising the highway in Texas, without their knowledge.

Us Americans watch our government commit these atrocities, under the rule of both major parties. We voted in a man who promised to end them, but who has only continued full throttle. Last year he signed a bill authorizing himself to detain Americans without charge, which is a blunt violation of our Constitution. Other bills currently sitting in Congress are the Expatriation Act, which allows the government to strip us of our citizenship, and HJ Res 15 which repeals the 22 amendment, abolishing term limits for the president. He would've sign SOPA too had Google not killed it.

We also watch in horror as European economies collapse and our national debt rises above 16 trillion. Our grandparents watched in horror as Hitler ravaged the continent during a similar depression. The United States is by far the most powerful government on the planet. If you'd really like to disarm our people, then I hope you enjoy the New American Century. I don't suspect your country would be able to do anything about it.

Jan 9 2013:
Wow, it sounds like your country is even more messed up than I thought and it sounds like you feel a need for some kind of revolution that may require guns to fight against your own government, ah la Egypt, Syria, etc. Your first instinct is the need to fight with violence. When my countries government, (New Zealand), decided they wanted to introduce nuclear power and invite nuclear powered ships into New Zealands waters, the people of my country said "Hell No", We All stood up and shouted our wish to be nuclear free. We picketted, we protested, we papered the country with our views and forced the government to have a reforendum where we overwhelmingly voted against any nuclear power or nuclear weapons in our country. Even though our government did not agree, they were forced to do as we wanted because we made it clear that our government was For the people ,and we the people had some thoughts about how it should be run. Then again, very few New Zealanders do not vote, whereas many of your countrymen don't. We paid for our decision because American placed strong embargoes and sanctions against us and it threatened our treaties but We the people stuck to our guns. All without any violence. The only violence came from France, when us New Zealanders protested the nuclear testing that France was carrying out in OUR territorial waters, so they sent their spies to NZ and bombed the Rainbow Warrior. You could call this an act of war. Instead of fighting back with violence, we just caught their spies within hours of the bombing and threw them in prison, thereby humiliating the French who thought our small country, Hick police force would have no hope of catching their top spies. If our government was to do things that our people are unhappy with, we get rowdy. Violence is not the only way to make change happen.

Jan 10 2013:
I suppose picketing would've stopped Hitler and Stalin too. :/ The second amendment isn't just for the past or the here and now. It's for every century in the future, to insure that citizens are as well armed as their government. The fact that the government's weapons well overpower our own is due to a distortion of the amendment. To trust that the government will always respect the will of the masses is foolish, and ignorant of the past.

The rights you take away from people today, you take away from people in the future. If you think the rest of time is going to be all well and dandy if the citizens of the world are unarmed and dependent on their rulers, well... I guess I have to respect your opinion.

Jan 3 2013:
I think the underlying issue here is that many americans are living in a fantasy construct and seem to believe two things.

1. That the guns are protecting their freedoms, despite all evidence now demonstrating that (because of policies such as the Patriot act, drone surveillance and the TSA) they have considerably less freedoms than pretty much all of the rest of the developed world.

2. That somehow when 'the time comes' , that they're all suddenly going to become Rambo and the locked up single guage rusty rifle in the garage is suddenly going to appear in their hands with unlimited ammo and they're going to take on a fleet of trained military and special forces personnel.
People in general do not have such an ability, despite many believing they do.

More guns = more freedom isn't an accurate representation of reality either.
More guns for everyone equals more guns for the untrained, paranoid, trigger happy and mentally questionable people who are also carrying them like you..

It creates an environment where you don't just have to be on guard for the rare nut-case who's shooting up the cinema, but also the 50 terrified people who are shooting wildly in retalliation with their eyes closed and any conflict that takes place anywhere, where everyone now has the capacity to immediately escalate the incident where dozens of people can get killed, a situation made clear by American gun crime statistics.
That isn't freedom, thats wild-west anarchy and xenophobic paranoia.

Jan 3 2013:
I'm curious about the self defence argument and why a gun is necessary.

If somebody breaks into your house - Is that burglar also going to kill you? Is that SOP for burglary?

Because if it is SOP, then I understand the need for the gun at home. But if it isn't, do you really need to shoot the thief over a TV or a PC or the misc whatnots?

But what if you're not at home when the thief breaks in? Did you bring the gun with you or leave it at home?

If you left your gun at home, then doesn't the thief now have it? Now you need to go out and get another one because somebody might break into your house because you don't have a gun.

if you brought it with you then doesn't make you a threat to the non gun carrying person out there who offended you for some unknown reason and who you're now going to put in his place, because .., well..., you have a gun? And heaven help you if you step on somebody's property. He's obviously just as well armed as you and he'll think you;re a thief and you're gonna kill him. You had a gun after all - what was he supposed think when he confronted you and you pulled it out to defend yourself.

By the way most gun owners are responsible law-abiding citizens. Many are trained and store their guns properly.

I guess I have to clarify this post for "specs 2." First, he was armed with a crowbar. Second, she saw him, according to the article, and she had to gather her children, a phone, and yes her gun before she retreated into a crawl space. No I applaud her for doing exactly what she did. He broke into her house and tracked her down. I don't fault her for firing all the round either! I would hope you are never put in this volatile situation, adrenaline pumping, fearing for yours, and your children's lives! This could've been much worse. Give me a break!

Again, he shouldn't have broken in. She didn't have to fire a warning shot. It's too bad he was only wounded, you're right he probably will sue. But she is fully within her rights per castle doctrine.

Jan 7 2013:
I'm not excusing the robber but don't you think that she could have handled it better instead of shooting an unarmed man.

He rang the doorbell? Why didn't she answer the door? The whole freaking thing could possibly have been avoided right there.

Why didn't she call the cops before hiding? She had time.

Why didn't she answer the door with the gun? Again the whole thing could have ended right there.

And why shoot him five times? Wouldn't one shot have stopped the guy?

Why did she unload the gun on him? Her only solution was to try to kill the guy. That's not defense. That's an over reaction. She used more than enough force to defend herself and had he died she could conceivably be charged with manslaughter.

After all is said and done she shot an unarmed person because she was afraid of her own shadow and relied on her gun instead of common sense?

And oh yeah - just because many gun owners are trained to store their guns properly, that doesn't mean they do or do more than the required to meet the local requirements.

Jan 3 2013:
Things are very real here brother. ...
2 days ago in Louisiana .. an elderly man in his 80s had to shoot a man, a known drug addict and thief, who was breaking into his home. The old man made his presence known by yelling at his would be assailant through the door. He still broke in and was shot as soon as he walked in. What do you think about this?

Let me add that a few years ago, my bosses dad, who was at least 80, was robbed by 2 men, one kneeled on his chest and held him down while he was looted. ... Any thoughts?

Jan 4 2013:
Tell the people in ghettos across the U.S. about xenophobic paranoia. Tell any of the dead victims of home invasions that were killed or raped first then killed. Explain to the father holding his dying child on this weeks New Orleans newspaper about paranoia. This is not Fantasy Island, these things happen. We may seem safe from everyone but nut-jobs in this country, but you never know what can happen and people want to feel prepared.

As far as a fantasy construct, people in America have many different realities.

If you take away guns can you assure me of no black market for criminals, a la drugs. Do you think the police will be one step ahead of the criminals, especially murderers? When have they got there before the crime?

Dec 31 2012:
I see many sides to this discussion. Some want assault weapons banned and for others all weapons. Some of us say that our mental health institutions need to be changed and perhaps given more funding. Others point to video games and violent movies as the culprit. Some even have gone as far as wanting armed guards in all of our schools.

We need to stop kidding ourselves that just one of these ideas will fix the problem as a whole. If we really want to see change, to see less of these shootings, then we will need to apply each one of these measures. Assault weapons should be banned or limited to some extent, there is absolutely no reason to have such a weapon unless your getting ready to fight a war. In the US in 2009 for every 100,000 of us, 10 people died from gun related crimes. In the UK, which does not allow private gun ownership, .25 people died for every 100,000 citizens in 2011 and for Japan, that number is down to .07 deaths for every 100,000 people in 2008. And lets face it, our movies and video games glorify violence, our children are growing up in a world where there told killing people is bad, but then proceed to pay a game where killing people is the goal. As for the armed guard in every school, while this is an extreme measure, having at least one armed guard in some of our more major schools may not be such a bad idea.

Most of us can agree that our Mental Health Institutions need more funding and support, and some new programs should probably be instituted. However the demonizing of the mentally Ill should not be allowed to continue, and while not everyone is doing this certain groups are. It reminds me of the Nazis, using a scapegoat to blame all their problems on. Finally we need to take a good look at our society as a whole, what should be acceptable and what shouldn’t be tolerated. We will only see change if we want change, and we will only see progress if more than just one approach is followed.

Dec 31 2012:
Well said Jarred, and I wholeheartedly agree, that there are many underlying issues that need attention. I believe one of the first things we need to do, and the topic of this discussion, as you insightfully recognize, is to get assault weapons out of circulation.

Dec 31 2012:
And if you can get the assault weapons ban in place FIRST, then you won't really have to take care of any of the other underlying problems that your generation have allowed to fester in plain sight.

Dec 31 2012:
Marianne,
I have been working for over 60 years with abused women and children, with offenders who are incarcerated, facilitating empowering workshops for ALL people, mediating with convicted felons, volunteering in shelters, family centers, guest lecturing at the university on the topic of violence and abuse in relationships....bla.....bla....bla.

STOP being sarcastic....STOP blaming and START becoming part of the solution!

The reason that many posters here are bringing up the same issues is not as obscure as you pretend.

It's as if the prohibitionists have taken the 2nd Amendment and equated with the root cause of the shootings in Conneticut. In their minds, they are judge and jury and the posters here are being brought in to help with the sentence. Then like a lynch mob, pose the question to the group "Should we shoot him or just whip him?'
Well, the non-probitionist side is making their case, that "you have the wrong man", and you are letting the real guy get away.
So to continue:

I don't think any of us can remember a time where there hasn't been a bureacracy and a social worker assigned to everyone of our social ills. I hope you did good in your career. It is probably easier to do so in a smaller communtity where there might be more resources.

However, it has also been long known, since as far back as the Peter Grace audit of the Federal Budget to the GAO reports, that a mere smattering of dollars that are appropriated for these problems, end up as measureable services or in the hands of the people or i who need it, with 80-90% being absorbed by the bureacracies themselves.

Some rogue thinkers don't ascribe to the idea that Big Daddy government has all the solutions to all the social problems. The Torah model for taking care of people & famliies who fall out of the economy, is to get them back on their feet in one fell swoop while the policies of the government programs have done little but faciitate the poor languishing in the lower social economic conditions for generations, where they become a breeding ground for violence & crime.

There really was no reason for me to call you a control freak. But how many posters are you currently telling that their input is outside the scope of the subjet?

Jan 1 2013:
That is the question asked by Morgan Barnes, but it is not honest to ignore that the question is posed as a reaction to the shootings in Newtown.

Quote:
After yesterdays tragic shooting in Newtown CT and the worst year ever for firearm related deaths and mass killings , has the time for the US Government to tell the Gun Lobby it is over and repeal or amend "the right of the people to bear arms".

Without actually making the case, Morgan Barnes has found the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership culpable of the shooting event. That is the same as a lynch mob mentality,because Barnes hasn't made the case, he jumps to a conclusion that he has not established.

The prohibitionists are demanding a shallow solution to a complex problem, which seems to be "Do Something that Violates the 2nd Amendment"...

That is a disservice to the people who will be killed in these horrific mass killings of the future.

Dec 31 2012:
Well since no one appears to be even close to it, I'll just offer one that I know to be true, and shouldn't offend your delicate sensibilities. It's fun. Handgun's, rifles, submachineguns, heavymachineguns, assault rifles, explosives, all offer a different experience. Don't know why, not prepared to say, but explosions are REALLY fun. Considering fun and excitement on it's own isn't a big problem with this country, or people in general for that matter, it seems unlikely to me that this isn't a legitimate reason.

For me, mental health is the only issue here. All answers with people are derived from... you guessed it! People.

Jan 2 2013:
Of course not, however, not every assault gun carries with it a tag indicating the # of confirmed kills. I can't get behind this kind of thinking, we as a society give these same weapons to 17 year old kids of all backgrounds without worry. Other countries do it as well, without issue. Training is important but there are SEVERAL cases in your local papers across this country that has veterans losing it and killing people with assault rifles while other ones, like me, don't have a problem. Clearly the answer is not so simple, we have a purely reactionary society and it's quite good at overreacting, if this wasn't children it probably wouldn't have had as much attention.

Jan 2 2013:
The majority of people would agree that those three are not fun. That's how society works of course, the majority decides whether or not a minority pushes them to.

I completely understand the people that want them removed on principal alone, they don't go to the range, they've never had to use one, they don't want to, they have no interest in them. All those personal choices doesn't change the fact that it is somewhat fun to fire more and more powerful weapons, particularly for young males.

I've heard it echoed over and over here that there is no reason to "need" the weapons in question (I hate that wording by the way, to need weapons, you could say the same thing in varying factors about just about anything else. Instead ask, why do people want them), but people want them for reasons we've discussed or at least introduced here and this one which is wholly ignored, probably because people aren't interested in shooting. Now, is that an invalid reason to own weapons?

Jan 2 2013:
Matt,
I don't see people arguing for "removal" of guns "on principal alone". You don't really know what the reasons are, unless you genuinely read and try to understand the comments, which it appears you are not doing.

Your argument... "somewhat fun to fire more and more powerful weapons", feels kind of frightening and not a very good argument.

Jan 16 2013:
You say: "The time has come to realise it is mainly our children who pay the ultimate price for lack of diligence in monitoring a problem that has been there for far too many years."

As a former gun owner, US Navy Marksman, and student of the US Constitution, I agree with the words quoted above...just not the direction that you are trying to take that sentiment.
The consideration from the Constitutional point of view is that the FIRST act of every single dictator in history has been to attempt to dis arm the citizens of the nation they are trying to take over.
I've done a lot of research over the years and two very interesting facts stand out:
1) Our gun laws (about purchasing weapons) as they exist today, WORK. The have prevented felons and psychos from being able to buy a weapon. They worked in this case and they have worked with VERY few exceptions in the cases of other school shootings.
2) Virtually every single case of a psycho (yes, I KNOW it's not politically correct but if you shoot up a school or a mall, you are by definition a psycho!) shooting up a school was made possible by some legal gun owner NOT securing their weapons and said weapons were STOLEN by the psycho because they were prevented from buying them.
Here's my suggestion: 1) REQUIRE legal gun owners to SECURE their weapons whenever the weapons are not on their person with a shrouded trigger lock and or gun SAFE (NOT a display cabinet)
2) REQUIRE gun owners to take a use and safety class every 2 (two) years that is at least 40 hours.
3)Require gun owners to have liability insurance.
Every one of these school shootings, IMHO, has been a direct result of legal gun owners displaying gross negligence...

Jan 16 2013:
Its a start agreeded but even crims have legally obtained firearms would you agree that by regulating the kind of firearm available would also be an option does anyone really need a 50cal desert Eagle in an urban situation????
just as an example??

Jan 13 2013:
Excellent topic!
The issue is the USA has a disproportionate number of killings using firearms than other any developed country. There must be correlation between the ease of access of high powered weapons and the killing statistics. Surely it can't be "cultural" can it??

Violent movies and so on are available everywhere!

Many countries have gun laws that restrict and control the types of guns people can own and how those guns are stored and the users trained. Surely it would do no harm for the US to take a look at what happens elsewhere. If this means that the precious 2nd amendment needs to be amended or abolished and or replaced by some sort of stricter control over firearm ownership then good! The outcome that any civilised country should seek is the safety of its people and it's laws should be aligned accordingly.

The days when cowboys roamed the range shooting at everyone else have passed, time to move on America!

Jan 13 2013:
There is no correlation between the use of assault style weapons (aka "high powered weapons") and killing statistics. Few gun crimes are committed with high powered weapons. Most are committed with handguns. So that is an incorrect correlation.

However, the increase in requirement for firearm training is a valuable one and should be pursued.

Jan 13 2013:
David, it is true that there are some high power handguns out there. I would hazard a guess that most of the crimes committed with handguns are lower caliber, easily accessible guns.

Most of the high caliber, high powered handguns are expensive or not interesting to those who would commit a crime. Mainly due to cost and difficulty accessing them.

That being said, it is important to truly look at what weapons are being used, where they are coming from, and who is using them. The issue runs much deeper than just the weapons themselves. There are significant cultural issues tied into this that are not being addressed and probably should be.

Jan 13 2013:
David, you are right....there are some powerful hand guns out there too, and they are available at gun shows and on line with very little, if any, regulation.

I agree with you Everett, that there are other issues that need to be addressed, and we need to address ALL the issues.

This topic question is:
"Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"

This is one issue we can start addressing, to hopefully contribute to the overall challenge.
I do not believe the second amendment needs to be repealed or amended, because the document allows for regulation. The last time we had a ban on assault weapons, nothing was repealed or amended to the best of my knowledge.

Jan 10 2013:
Was the meaning of the second amendment meant to change with time? If not, issue a musket, ramrod, powder horn and balls to every American, and ban modern weapons. If so, put a patriot missile in every front yard.

Jan 10 2013:
I don't know, this is a popular theory, that the Constitution should 'change with time. But we all know that "time' can not change the Constitution so let us lay the question out in real terms..isn't the question more rightly put as "Shouldn't we allow men to change the Constitution as they choose?"

Of course, that creates a dilemma when elected officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution see fit to diminish the provisions of that same document.

What do you think Thomas Jefferson meant when he said "Don't talk to me of GOOD MEN, chain them to the Constitution."?

We give Morgan Barnes the benefit of taking him as a "GOOD MAN" and yet he has openly defended the slaughter of innocent people at WACO by law enforcement, who just "made some mistakes" (sic) while the horse he rode in on is the Sandy Hook massacre and the attending public angst.

The most ardent 2nd Amendment advocate has not suggested that Adam Lanza's mother
just made an unfortunate mistake that we should overlook. If that were the case , we would offer an asinine suggestion that all we should do in reaction to Sandy Hook is to insist that all guns be labeled "DO NOT ALLOW MENTALLY UNSTABLE PERSONS TO COME INTO POSSESSION OF THIS GUN. AND BY NO MEANS, USE THIS GUN TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE"...this would be equal to Morgan Barnes assertion that we overlook recent law enforcement atrocities in the US and chalk it up to a learning curve.

I think that if we ever entertained the idea of revising the Constitution, we would have to be able to produce statesmen of the same caliber as the original authors.

Jan 1 2013:
Not the moral high ground necessarily, Britain has flaws and has caused many problems in the past but we can teach young countries, Britain also has much to learn from older countries like Japan and Norway but we will not due to ignorance. The only way we will all learn is from experience, we all have failings but we tend to point the finger towards the Usa when it comes to guns. We have a duty to educate and assist people in learning about peace and understanding.

Dec 25 2012:
I find it is easy to criticise the American government for what Lanza did but the fact is lots of scapegoats are being targeted, namely computer games and parents as well as the gun laws, the fact is Lanza was a fan of the military more than anything. Violence exists in the world whether you like it or not and we can search for all the excuses we wish to, banning firearms worked in Britain because we are an ancient country who has learned over centuries to evolve, the United States of America is still young and requires support to handle their gun situation not finger pointing, half the country want to own guns, the government cannot win without upsetting half of the country, namely the half of the country which already has the say. People will not be safe with or without guns, individuals who wish to kill will kill. Instead of blaming from your pedestal put money into mental health research and community youth and homeless programs. Offer guidance to a young country.

Dec 27 2012:
While I agree with the young country argument-in most cases-I'm confused how that relates to gun control. Is Switzerland a young nation? Have you evaluated that? In my experience, this much snobbishness was always limited to the Swedes' so I'm surprised to see so many Brits staking their claim upon the moral high ground and talking about how much moral clarity they've obtained (how's your ethnic track record recently?) through just 300 years of unity (1700s). Clearly the very tip of the spear on social issues.

Young nation, yes, in need of guidance, yes. How that relates to gun control? Not seeing it.

Jan 15 2013:
I will leave this conversation, with some thoughts about our future. And I guess I must ask the question: Where are we going as a Society, as a Nation, as a Species? Where are we going if, as a collective people we believe that something we created, not our Creator (something that has the power to take away life so fast, and with great numbers) be the Answer to us growing as a responsible Species living on a planet that none of knows how much time we have? While I can say that I have no Fears that the US Government is on the path of taking away all of our rights as many in this Country do, I do have the fear that having so many arms in circulation will be the Crux of an upcomming Civil War. There are many other assault weapons being sold on the black market in this country including Bombs, Chemicals and other mass destructive devices. At what point do we protect ourselves, from...OURSELVES? While I can disagree with so many of you out there on this issue, I still believe that our Government is the answer. We the people have got to become more involved and hold Politicians more accountable! But we the People have to be dedicated to not perpetuate a Violent Society. Many fight for the rights of the unborn, but still believe taking a gun away from a potential threat is not as good an answer as putting a gun in the other persons hands. With those odds, you can bet that death is almost certain. But the real growth in our society will be when MONEY is not the determining factor in our lives, as it is now. Again, something we created that has become (much more than a cliche') "the root of all evil!" When will human beings be worth more than Money itself. It is the Crux of this thread when all is said and done. A homeless family can be arrested for trespassing for squatting in a vacant house, just because they are trying to stay warm. But where is the common sense? Where are we going? Do we have the strength of Faith to lay down our guns, open our hands and help each other?

Jan 15 2013:
I like your ideas for a better future, but people can not be forced through legislation to follow a certain path to achieve your idea of a better future. People have their own ideas for reaching their goal of a better tomorrow.

I appreciate the potrait you have painted of decadence and salvation, but I can not help but wonder with a statement like "arms in circulation are the crux of a civil war", who is really paranoid?

Jan 16 2013:
Unfortunately, Craig, I do not share your optimistic view of mankind. I try to walk in the New Testament, but much of the world operates as if they are still in the pre-Old Testament. There are a lot of people who want to kill us and our wives and our children, and are doing so to thier greatest abilities, for what we believe in-freedom of speech, religion, etc., people who stone women and kill gay men and beat women for exposing an ankle. So the byword is to be prepared and stand ready, and then go about our lives to the extent that we can treating our fellow man with decency. If we lay down our guns and open our hands as you say, we'll just get our throats slit like so many sheep. That doesn't mean we don't help each other. As for money, it is a medium of exchange and a convenient store of value, not evil. We are free to choose how to live, at least in the US so far. Civil war comes from oppression, not from too many weapons. However, Amen to getting involved and holding politicians accountable. Although you and I disagree in a fundatmental way, we still could break bread together without fear, and probably find some common ground.

Jan 13 2013:
Heres the major issue that everyone seems to be overlooking whilst being infavor of mass gun-ownership (and an increase, according to some comments).

Any Professional firearms trainer will immediately say something to the tune of:
'A gun is never more dangerous when its in the hands of someone who is untrained/emotional. Not necessarily to the criminal, but to themselves, thier family and anyone else around them'..

Here are some facts:
-More people are starting to carry loaded guns
-More people are aware that other people are carrying loaded guns
-More people are untrained to use them, have never used one, are going to freak out in danger
-More people are not Rambo
-More people who shouldn't have guns have them aswell
-More people are carrying them in the possible case of an incident
-More people carrying guns are going to find themselves in relatively crowded locations

To me that sounds like a horrifying outcome because it creates a situation where all it takes is for 1 crazed basketcase to fire a shot before an untold number of frantic, horrified individuals are firing a gun they can't control and/or not have sniper-precision to shoot the right person in a crowd of people running for their lives.

There will come a point where someone will go on a 50 man killing spree and it will turn out that 30 of the deaths didn't come from the maniac.

Jan 13 2013:
People who would act as you say with a gun probably would not own one and almost definitely would not conceal carry them. We can have concealed carry where I am from and I do not know anybody that constantly is armed. The people that do carry are usually working in a bad section of the city. No one I know goes to the mall, or movies , ... anything like that, carrying.

Jan 13 2013:
Uh, Xavier, From your list of "facts"...can you also produce numbers showing that those "facts" are resulting in crimes or any justification for proposing that the nation amends it's Constitution? You have to understand that what is being proposed here is an amendment to the US Constitution. It's absurd to think that an amendment to the Constitution is the solution to your "Scary things' list.

Jan 13 2013:
Xavier, your scenario is a nightmare. The fact is that in order to obtain a concealed cary permit, you must first go through a training class. The guns are not the problem, people are the problem, a well practiced individual can cause as much or more havoc with any weapon and size magazine. If we start eliminating our "Constitutional Rights" where will it end? Will you want to also eliminate our right to "VOTE"!!!! I say that there is a greater need for 'GUN EDUCATION" than "GUN CONTROL". The "2nd. Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, I wont let them take that right away from me. More people (including children) die every year from "Medical Malpractice" than from "gun violence", but I don't hear anyone saying that we should change the "medical malpractice laws".

Jan 12 2013:
I will apologize if I repeat previous comments, as I have not read the entire thread.

First, discussing the repeal of the 2nd amendment following a tragic shooting is always a poor choice. Feelings run high and the tragedy is fresh in our minds. We do not think clearly.

Second, there are many laws in place that monitor, regulate, and state what is legal and not with firearms. The recent shooting simply shows us that even those laws fail. For example, the shooter stole the guns, could not have owned them legally, had a mental disability which might have kept him from owning firearms at all. None of those laws did anything to stop him.

Third, the issue that is most frustrating, is that we often find that people suspected the person who did the shooting was going to do it, and did nothing. That is a failure of humans, not the firearms. Often, there are mental issues that are left without help and the person reaches a tipping point where violence seems appropriate.

Finally, for the 2nd amendment to be repealed is a significant process. If the country is going to do it, they need to stand up as a large portion and state that. For the president to use executive power to alter the 2nd amendment would be a poor choice on their part. It would turn very ugly very quickly and polarize the nation against him or her. And probably is not constitutional to boot.

Instead, I would like to see a focus on improving the mental health care of our nation and address the issues that would lead someone to consider this action. Also, enforce the laws on the books. And recognize that a large number of crimes are prevented by the possession of a firearm. Then consider the facts, not the fallacies of the arguments in a clear, non-emotional light.

Jan 10 2013:
WOW Morgan!
Have you read a single reason against your viewpoint, it sure seems like you did not.
You know all the reasons given here for amending and calming no interest in taking all guns, may sound better if we had not heard them all before.
We are just going to ban tanks,
We are just going to ban cannons,
We are just going to ban grenade launchers,
We are just going to ban grenades,
We are just going to ban automatic weapons,
We are just going to ban high-capacity semi-automatic weapons,
And if we give in, how soon will we hear?
We are just going to ban semi-automatic weapons,
We are just going to ban guns,
We are just going to ban sharp long knives,
We are just going to ban long knives,
We are just going to ban sharp knives,
We are just going to ban freedom of speech on TV,
We are just going to ban freedom of speech online,
We are just going to ban freedom of speech in public places,

Jan 9 2013:
This whole ban the guns thing is pure scare tactic and smoke screen. More children die of hunger, drowning, vehicle accidents, not getting access to doctors, and other things than die of gun vilolence. There are things that can be done about those things, but they are not being done, ,why? Are our guns scaring you? Are our guns going to jump up and kill you? No, you are being driven by lobbyists that want to see our citizens disarmed,. That is the real question, why do they want to see us disarmed? It is definately not about the lives of children, or we would see them pass legislature to make sure every kid is fed, and has access to health care, and we saw how they cared about that. This has to do with making us into good serfs that can no longer bargain for our rights, or defend ourselves from those in power. Wake up!

Jan 10 2013:
Can anyone tell me the last time that citizens of the US, legally armed under the amendment, used these said arms to "defend (y)ourselves from those in power. " ? The whole point, whilst containing some worthwhile distractions, is worthy of a Monty Python sketch. The right to bear arms..against a despotic government:; do you honestly think that if you ever suffered under a totalitarian regime, that they would respect those rights ? On the other hand, even without the right, all over the world ( think Libya and Egypt recently ) citizens who had had enough of a regime were still able to obtain arms and overthrow the despot. Do you think that Oliver Cromwell and his parliamentarian army that overthrew King Charles the 1st needed to go to Charlie boy and ask for permission to raise arms against him ? It's a nonsensical argument.
On the other hand, if you are claiming that it is the "right to defend oneself and one's property", that is another issue. I can see some logic there, but surely then, you don't need a bazooka or a tank to defend yourself on the way home from the pub or your 2 acre smallholding ?
So let's sort out what you need the arms for and then limit them to a sensible calibre, fire rate or whatever and please make sure that applicants have a stable background and an IQ. above their age !

By the way, it was stated that the US has the highest gun ownership in the world. I believe both Canada and Swizterland have higher per capita levels without anything like the level of crime/fatalities. So there may be some credence to the population densities..or is it just that they make sure that you have to show a sane personality and some proficiency/self control with a firearm before owning one rather than the fact that you've just opened a new bank account !

Jan 11 2013:
You sound an awful lot like a brit, and I don't appreciate your implying that IQ has anything to do with the crazies that use firearms to kill innocents. Just because it's been a while since anyone defended themselves from overeaching governments, doesn't mean it won't happen. As far as being able to resist an out of control government without arms, tell that to the Chinese man that stared down the tank.As for per capita gun ownership, the chart I am looking at per 100 people The U.S. has 88.8 canada 30.8 Switzerland 45.7 So I guess you are mistaken.

Jan 11 2013:
To suggest I'm British is a typical US stereotyping. I'm Irish and we know something about raising and arming a militia to overthrow a despotic government ! And guess what, we did it without an amendment, hell, we did it without a constitution ( well, an in force one anyway ).
Mistaken - no. The figures that you read putting the US top of the gun ownersdepends on how you read the figures. That figure is based on the total number of private guns sold divided by the population. So when you start removing the people with more than one gun, and figures suggest that 50 of the people who legally hold a gun licence have more than one ( many more than one ! ), the figure drops dramatically.

Jan 11 2013:
Lets see your figures because it sounds goofy to me. You are saying an awful lot that I should take on what your say so? Everybody I know, and grew up with, owns at least one gun, and usualy many. And lets face it, the argument was number of guns per population no matter how you split them up in your mind. By the way, should we all use bombs as the IRA did? Isn't that how you armed against a despotic governmment?